Professor
Bernard Lewis (photo below) is an octogenarian
expert of the “Middle East”
(itself an invented geopolitical term). Lewis is indeed a “master”
scholar and expert on the Turks, Iranian and Arabs (see sample of
his books in references). And herein lays the tragedy: Lewis wields
his treasure trove of knowledge as an engine of destruction. Few have
ever heard of “The Bernard Lewis Project”.

Lewis

Professor
Lewis first unveiled his project in the Bilderberg Meeting in Baden,
Austria, on April 27-29, 1979[i][ii] (see the only photo available
of a Bilderberg Conference – 1954 photo). He formally proposed the
fragmentation and balkanization of Iran along regional, ethnic and linguistic lines especially among
the Arabs of Khuzestan (the Al-Ahwaz project), the Baluchis
(the Pakhtunistan project), the Kurds (the Greater Kurdistan
project) and the Azerbaijanis (the Greater Azerbaijan Project)[iii].

Bilderberg

Dreyfus
and LeMarc (see References, p. 157) provide
a very succinct summary of the plan’s methodology:

“According
to Lewis, the British should encourage rebellions for national
autonomy by the minorities such as the Lebanese Druze, Baluchis,
Azerbaiajni Turks, Syrian Alawites, the Copts of Ethiopia, Sudanese
mystical sects, Arabian tribes…the goal is the break-up of the
Middle East into a mosaic of competing ministates and the weakening
of the sovereignty of existing republics and kingdoms…spark
a series of breakaway movements by Iran’s Kurds, Azeris, baluchis,
and Arabs…these independence movements, in turn would represent
dire threats to Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan and other neighbouring
states.”

The
report is almost too incredible to believe: this is indeed the dark
side of Professor Lewis’ distinguished academic career. For the students
of geopolitical and Petroleum Diplomacy however, there is nothing
new regarding the “chop-up Iran” agenda (item 10).

Robert
Olson (see References, esp. p.108-158) has provided a surprisingly candid
and sober assessment of the Greater Azerbaijan Project. He
has provided a detailed assessment of how the intelligence and
military agencies of Turkey, USA and Israel have set
up bases and networks in Northern Iraq, Eastern Turkey and the Republic of Azerbaijan (esp. Nakhchivan) to broadcast anti-Iran hate propaganda into
Iranian Azerbaijan. There is in fact a foreign-funded anti-Iran separatist
radio station known as the Voice of Southern Azerbaijan (VOSA).

The
relationship between VOSA and the Rashet Betradio station
(see photo below) of Israel
was first reported by independent reporter Nick Grace. The
report is available on the Clandestine Radio Intel Website (see Web
references). Excerpts from his report are as follows:

“…According
to monitor Nikolai Pashkevich in Russia, "when I tuned in my
receiver to this channel I found an open carrier with 'Reshet Bet...
on the background and then VOSA
signing on" (CDX 180). Rashet Bet is, of course, a
news service of Israel Radio. The German Telecommunications department has also pinpointed
VOSA's location to be somewhere
around Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia (BCDX 351.)…VOSA is clearly supervised and arranged by Israel's intelligence
agency: the Mossad…”.

RashetBet

Olson
also reports of sophisticated telecommunications equipment
mounted on specialized vehicles that regularly drive inside Iranian
territory, beam propaganda (presumably on video and radio) and retire
across the border once their programs are concluded. Below left is
a photograph of the latest military spy communications truck, the
SmarTruck II - note state of the art communications panels
inside the vehicle (below right photo):

TrucksTrucks-Panel

The
main role of VOSA-Rashet Bet and the SmarTruck II vehicles
are to target Iranian Azerbaijanis with false and provocative information,
mainly as narrated by Mr. Chehreganli and Dr. Brenda Shaffer (see
item 4).

Olson
has also reported of a plan to station western (American) heavy military
equipment (e.g. tanks, missiles) in the Republic of Azerbaijan. The
Moscow News report on September 26, 2005, has also reported of such assistance taking place (Web References).

Political reporter, Michel Chossudovsky, has provided
the following assessment:

“Washington
has been involved in covert intelligence operations inside Iran.
American and British intelligence and Special Forces
(working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in this operation…Targeting Iran
… broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates,
the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial
complex…The announcement to target Iran
should come as no surprise. It is part of the battle for oil…In
Baku, Azerbaijan
Rumsfeld was busy discussing …the stated short term objective
…to "neutralize Iran".
The longer term objective under the Pentagon's "Caspian
Plan" is to exert military and economic control over the entire
Caspian Sea basin, with
a view to ensuring US authority over oil
reserves and pipeline corridors.”

Rumsfeld’s
goal to “neutralize Iran”
is actually a description of Olson’s prediction of the intended “Right-sizing
of Iran”
(p.236) – destroying Iran
as a sovereign state and erasing its Persian heritage.

In
practice, this means that Western and democratic states have allied
themselves with dangerously racist organizations (e.g. SANAM, Grey
Wolves, etc.) in the endeavour to dismember a sovereign state.
Very little thought seems to have been put into the consequences
of such irresponsible actions. Grey Wolf ideologues falsely and naively
believe that the present anti-Iranian geopolitical situation will
allow them to finally realize their fantastic dream of their pan-Turanian
super state, stretching from China to the Balkans, encompassing Central Asia, the Caucasus, Russia, Ukraine and Persia in its
wake.

Western
patronage of Grey Wolf ideologues (e.g. Mr. Chehreganli) is ultimately
futile and doomed to failure (recall Part V). These actions will
cost western taxpayers billions of wasted Dollars, Pounds and Euros.
Imagine if that same money were to go to the promotion of education,
friendship societies, health care and even support for the victims
of the recent Hurricane Katrina Disaster in New
Orleans.

The
fact however is brutally and cynically clear: geopolitical agendas
and petroleum diplomats has always ranked the economic (petroleum)
equation higher than the human one. The partitioning of Iran
(Bernard Lewis Project) is seen as an economic necessity (see item
3 below).

But
herein lies the irony: the Bernard Lewis plan is also directed against
Turkey (see item 9 below) and Arab
states such as Iraq.
It is interesting that some media reports are now suggesting that
the only vialble solution to the western Iraqi entanglement is to
partition that state along ethnic/sectarian lines. This would mean
that Iraq would be split into three separate Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish mini-states:

Iraq3Parts

The
formation of a Greater Kurdistan for example, may potentially
lead to the disintegration of not only Iran,
but Turkey, Iraq and Syria[iv]. The formation of a Greater Azerbaijan would eliminate a significant
portion of Iran’s
industrial base, geography, and demography.[v]
This would in turn encourage a pan-Kurdish separatist movement encompassing
Iran, Turkey and Syria, leading
to the break-up or diminution of those states. As noted by Engdahl
(p.171), the Bernard Lewis Plan endeavours to:

“…promote
the Balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along Tribal and
religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous
groups such as the Kurds…Ethiopian Copts… Azerbaijanis…the
chaos would spread in…an “Arc of Crisis”… ”.

There are
indications that the Iran-Iraq war may have been part of the larger
Bernard Lewis plan. Iran was to be invaded with the specific purpose
of carving it up into small mini-states.

Direct evidence of the British origins of the Iraqi
invasion plan was reported in The New York Times newspaper
early in the war (See article entitled "British in 1950, Helped
Map Iraqi Invasion of Iran" by Halloran, R. in The New York Times,
Thursday, Oct.16, 1980.). Interestingly, this report was ignored by
the mainstream press and media. The points of this report are summarized
as follows:

(1) A detailed invasion plan had been prepared for the
Iraqi armed forces in 1950 by the British Military advisors for Iraq,
a full 30 years before the invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein.
(2) The main draft of the plan had been in preparation by the British
since 1937. The main axes of advance detailed in the plan corresponded
exactly to the Iraqi invasion of Iran on September 22, 1980.
(3) The main objective of this war plan " called for
Iraqi forces to occupy Khuzistan province and then negotiate
an armistice with the Iranian government that would include the relinquishment
of the province to Iraq also liberate the Arab-speaking
people living in Khuzistan". Significantly, successive
changes in the Iraqi government over the next thirty years did not
alter the major objectives of the British plan; these were simply
updated as time progressed.

The British plan for Iran's invasion indicates that
even before the Bernard Lewis Plan was unveiled in the Bilderberg
Conference, detailed British plans for eliminating Iran as a state
have bene in place long before 1979.

(2) Geopolitics & Petroleum Diplomacy.

(a)
The Role of British Petroleum and Oil Companies

Although
not generally known, Imperial Britain has had a keen interest in the
Baku oilfields since the beginning of the
twentieth century. This is dramatically illustrated from the May 23,
1914, London Petroleum Review, which reports the Ottoman oils
fields of Mesopotamia (modern Iraq and Kuwait) as “a second Baku
in the making” (note the report blow – the “Baku” caption is highlighted
for reference – see also William Engdahl (p.40-41) in References):

ReportB

It
was in the 1860s when Russian geologists discovered substantial petroleum
deposits along the Western Caspian,
mainly in the former Persian territory
of Baku. The British
certainly had eyes for those Baku
deposits, but these were under Russian occupation at the time (recall
the Golestan and Turkemenchai treaties cited before).

This
is why they had such a keen interest in the “second Baku” of Mesopotamia. The
First World War allowed Imperial Britain to move into Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf as to appropriate the region’s
oil deposits for itself. The major weapon used by British intelligence
to dissolve the Ottoman Empire was its ethnic diversity, expressed mainly by different languages
(e.g. Kurdish, Arabic) and religions (Christian, Muslim, Alevi, etc.).
Petroleum diplomacy has had a long tradition of mobilizing
ethnic strife to achieve its geopolitical and economic objectives.
This is based on the proven Roman dictum: Divide and Rule.

The
collapse of the former Soviet Union
finally allowed for the opening of the Caspian oil market bonanza
to western interests. The legendary poise and patience of British
Petroleum (BP) diplomacy has again paid off. The present chief executive
officer of British Petroleum is Edmund John Philip Browne (Baron Browne of
Madingley)(left
Photo below). He was a party to the nearly three and a half years
of negotiations with Heidar Aliev (the late President of the
Republic of Azerbaijan) to
develop Azerbaijani oil deposits. On September 20th, 1994,
Aliev signed a production sharing contract with a whole host of western
and Turkish oil companies in Baku's Gulistan Palace (below right photo
– Browne 2nd from left in front row, Aliev - in front centre
-stands next to him).

LordBrowneBrowneAliev

The
presence of BP in this project is significant.
Other members of note on September 20th, 1994,
were John Imle (Unocal – recall its disastrous role in Afghanistan), Stanislav Pugach, (Russian
Ministry of Fuel and Energy), Tom Hamilton (Pennzoil) and Sitki
Sancar (Turkish Petroleum).

At
present, the Anglo-American petroleum access to the oil and gas deposits
of the Caspian basin is extracted via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.
This pipeline meanders through Eastern Turkey,
around Armenia, through
Georgia and finally through to the Republic of Azerbaijan. The security concerns with the pipeline however are high, making
the project economically costly. Georgia is unstable, and has struggled to maintain its Ossetian and Abkhazian
minorities within its borders. Eastern Turkey, teeming with Kurds, is vulnerable to attacks by separatists there.
This explains why the pipeline has virtually skirted around the Kurdish
region – proof again of the project’s costly and inefficient basis.

The
intense political manoeuvring between Turkey,
Iran, Russia, the Anglo-American political and economic elites, and the EU in the
Caspian region has been characterized by some as “The New Great
Game” – perhaps this is true. The end result for Iran has been unsuccessful in that she has been barred from any economic
participation in the pipeline (mainly as result of Anglo-US foreign
policy)[vi].

Iran is a stable and politically unified state, which (unlike Turkey) minimizes the need to maintain large
military forces in potentially hostile regions (e.g. eastern Turkey’s Kurdish region) in order to safeguard
pipelines. It is far more economical to transport Caspian oil via
Iran’s efficient transportation system which
links the northern Caucasian regions to the Persian
Gulf, where modern and efficient ports are
fully operational. Allowing Iran
to participate in the Caspian project however is geopolitically inconsistent
with the Bernard Lewis plan, unveiled in the Bilderberg Conference
of 1979 (item 1).

(b)
Dismantling Geopolitical Obstacles: Dismembering Yugoslavia

William Engdahl
(see References) has provided a detailed analysis of Petroleum geopolitics
and its ambitions in the Caucasus. Engdahl also argues that the civil
war and partitioning of Yugoslavia is part of the larger
scheme to secure the Caspian pipeline into Europe

“…The
Yugoslav model had to be dismantled…Yugoslavia also lay on
a critical path to the potential oil riches of Central Asia
…the National Endowment for Democracy…began…handing out generous
doses of dollars in every corner of Yugoslavia, financing opposition
groups…journalists…trade union opposition…and human
rights NGOs…(p.240)…using groups such as the Soros
Foundation…financial support was channeled into often extreme
nationalist or former fascist organizations that would
guarantee dismemberment of Yugoslavia (p.241)…”

[William,
Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New
World Order. London:
Pluto Press, p.240-241, 2004]

Sean Gervasi’s
little known article entitled “Germany, U.S. and the Yugoslav Crisis”
(see References) reported that Yugoslavia was

“…the
target of a covert policy waged by the west and its allies, primarily
Germany, the United States, Britain, Turkey and Saudi Arabia…to
divide Yugoslavia into its ethnic components…a process
of national fragmentation and fratricidal war…Germany…demanded
that the Bush administration adopt the German policy of working for
the “dissociation”, that is, the dismantling, of Yugoslavia.”

Why? Because,
a strong, large and united state in the Balkans (Yugoslavia)
was viewed as a potential obstacle to the coming oil pipelines of
the Caspian Sea, just as Iran is today.

One the fringe
fascist organizations that were promoted and supported by the west
was the vehemently far-right and anti-Serbian “Croatian Rights
Party” In Yugoslavia (see photo below by Gervasi – see References).

Croat Nazi

The parallels
with today’s Iran are striking. The west is currently supporting “extreme
nationalist” and “fascist organizations” such
as the Grey Wolves and Mr. Chehreganli’s SANAM organization

Engdahl cites
two additional reasons for western sponsorship of Yugoslavia’s partitioning:

[a] she was
a highly successful multiethnic state which had blended elements
of both socialism and capitalism into its economy. The present mini-state
successors of Yugoslavia are shadows of their former economic selves.
Poverty and economic instability are the legacies of the Yugoslav
tragedy (see child-beggar in Prishtiwie, Kosovo – photo by Gervasi
– see References].

Bosnia

Mr. Chehreganli
has promised Iranian Azerbaijanis that if they separate from their
ancestral nation, they will be rewarded with a booming western style
economy, which he proudly dubs as “The Kuwait of the
Caspian”. The reality is far different. The photo of the dejected
Bosnian child aptly summarizes what awaits the peoples of the region
should Mr. Chehreganli succeed in igniting a fratricidal war in Iran
and the Caucasus.

[b] the need
to have “…a commanding and clearly permanent military presence
in the strategic Balkans within reach of the Caspian
Sea” [Engdahl, 2004, p.244]

The
Caspian Sea?

The
objectives of the Azerbaijan
project (e.g. SANAM, UAM) of the Bernard Lewis Plan are designed to
promote western (mainly Anglo-American) geopolitical and Petroleum
interests. Mr. Chereganli’s SANAM movement openly acknowledges
the role of western and Turkish support (in the name of “Human
Rights”) for their cause:

“…Since
2002 the foreign representations of SANAM has been opening. At present,
24 representations -Bureau of the United States of America,
Europe, Turkey and also the Azerbaijani Republic
have been functioning…is known by the European Union, European
Parliament, …UNO …”

Two
specific objectives will be achieved by the “re-unification” of “north”
and “south” Azerbaijan:

[a]
A potentially powerful Iranian state is removed from the international
arena. The logic is that with Iran
dismembered, the profit margin would increase as there would
no longer be any need to economically and politically accommodate
a large and potentially powerful state. Many western geopolitical
interests are determined to gain access to the Iranian portion
of the Caspian by either dismantling or reducing the present state
of Iran.

Such
a multi-ethnically unified state (like former Yugoslavia in the Balkans) would set limitations on foreign business operations
on its sovereign territory. The destruction of a large and powerful
state leads to smaller states which are more easily bought under
the political and economic control of the aforementioned geopolitical
interests.

[b]
The Petroleum consortiums will have much easier geographicalaccess to the Caspian region, making the process of
Petroleumtransportation far less costly than the present
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. With Iranian Azerbaijan, Kurdistan
and Khuzestan detached from western Iran, the “Iranian oil market”, especially in Khuzestan will be opened
to multinational interests.

The
key question to be asked is this: is the state of Iran a geopolitical obstacle to Petroleum Diplomacy? As noted by Engdahl:

Olson
also notes how the use of Azerbaijani separatism simultaneously accommodates
geopolitical objectives by removing Iran
as a powerful state [a] and facilitate petroleum commerce [b]:

“The
re-emergence of the Azeri question also fit the international geostrategic
objectives of the US, EU, Turkey and Israel. First it would lessen the baility of Iran to participate
in the distribution network of oil and gas pipelines criss-crossing Central Asia, the Middle East and Southwest Asia. Second, the growth of Azeri nationalism facilitated US and EU efforts
to make the Caspian Basin region a “second” Persian Gulf…to
exclude Arab and many Muslim countries…from having any effective
voice in international affairs…to more effectively determine
the price and access to…the Persian Gulf and the Caspian
Sea basin.”

If
the Greater KhorassanandBaluchistan projects
are revived (and there are indications that this is happening), then
eastern Iran will be detached as well, allowing for pipelines
to be laid from Central Asia to Iran’s southern waters. Engdahl
has argued that the main reason that the Taliban of Afghanistan
was supported by the West was due to hopes of laying a Central
Asian pipeline across Afghan territory all the way to Pakistani
ports.

A
popular argument in today’s media outlets is that much of today’s
predicament is the result of more than two and half decades of political
and ideological alienation between Iran
and the United States.
There is no question that this animosity must be lifted, and is a
major contributor to present day politics. However the issue being
discussed here is the largely unreported geopolitical and economic
factor: Petroleum Diplomacy.

(3) Is Oil Running Out?

Cheap
and plentiful Oil is rapidly becoming a diminishing resource. This fact has been hidden from global popular knowledge. All the
facts about to be reported below are listed under Part VI References:
Diminishing Petroleum Resources, just after the Web references.
These are also reported by the aforementioned William Engdahl
(see References, p.258-263, 284).

Just
two days before the horrors of Sept 11, 2001, a very interesting memo was delivered to Tony Blair’s Cabinet Office
in London. The Memo
was called “Submission to the Cabinet Office on Energy Policy”.
Virtually unknown is the fact that the panel which submitted the report
to the British Prime Minister’s office included the aforementioned
British Petroleum chairman, Lord Browne.

A
number of details from that report and other subsequent communiqués
can be summarized into the following:

[a]
Global supplies of cheap oil are diminishing – output will soon decline.
The global peak for oil was forecasted to be 5-10 years away and Natural
Gas 20 years away.

[b]
One of the reasons for declining access to cheap oil will have to
do with the rise of new economic global powers: China,
India and possibly Indonesia.

[c]
At present, oil supplies are contributing 90% of the world’s transportation
fuel as well as 40% of the world’s other vital energy necessities.

[d]
Large investments in available Middle Eastern supplies will
only result in limited increases. “Available” means those regions
under the full sway of western interests.

[e]
There is a significant amount of underdeveloped oil resources in
the Middle East, notably Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the oil Emirates of the Persian Gulf. Iraq alone has been estimated to have perhaps 432 billion barrels of oil
reserves, making it an even larger resource than Saudi
Arabia. Western Africa and Libya were also
reported as having significant reserves.

[f]
The Caspian Sea region, especiallyin theRepublic of Azerbaijan, is also seen as a lucrative resource base.

Although
news reports did appear in some of the world’s most highly respected
media outlets (see Part VI References: Diminishing Petroleum Resources),
none of these appear to have attracted much attention.

Engdahl’s
analysis of the main thrust of geopolitical and Petroleum Diplomacy
are of interest:

“…controlling
every major existing and potential oil source and transport route
on earth…deception would be essential…”

[Engdahl,
2004, p.263-264]

It
is no co-incidence that geopolitical lobbies are also courting the
overtly racist “Al-Ahwaz” Arab separatist organization in the endeavour
to separate the oil-rich Khuzestan province in Iran’s southwest (see item 10).

SANAM,
The Grey Wolves, the UAM, Dr. Silahi Diker, Mr. Mahmudali Chehreganli,
and some elements of western scholarship (see following item), western
media outlets (item 7) are all expendable assets in the “deception”
(i.e. the Bernard Lewis Project) to extend geopolitical and
petroleum hegemony.

(4) Manipulating Scholarship in the West:

There
are a number of lobbies actively promoting pan-Turanian ideology in
the west. The majority of these constitute the Petroleum and geopolitical
lobbies discussed earlier in items 1-3. An important lobby affiliated
with these is the American Turkish Council (ATC- see Web References).

(a)
The ATC.

It
is no coincidence that the ATC is one of the most powerful lobbies
in America today. As a "non-profit" organization, the ATC
operates tax-free and is kept out of the media and legal spotlights.
But perhaps the most interesting component is the "educational
committee” of the ATC. This committee has successfully lobbied
the US public and government branches on behalf of the
ATC.

Political
reporter Christopher Deliso has cited a distinguished array
of American ATC members (see Web References). Their chair has been
known to include Brent Scowcroft, an influential member of the US
government. According to Deliso, the American membership is represented
by an impressive array of military contractors such as Boeing, Bechtel
International, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Northrop
Grumman, Raytheon and United Technologies/Sikorsky.

Political
writer, John Stanton, has conducted considerable research into
the activities of the ATC and its attempts to influence western
centers of higher learning (see References).

Popular
opinion regularly speaks of a powerful Jewish lobby in the US government:
virtually unknown is the role of the “Turkish lobby”. These include
Senators John Breaux and
John McCain, and many other people of considerable influence including
Richard Perle, Douglas Feith (long time chair of the
Defense Policy Board and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy), and
Paul Wolfowitz (DeputyDefense Secretary). The Turkish
lobby is now able to overpower the Greek and Armenian lobbies
in the US
government. This has allowed for the unhindered manipulation of
historical scholarship in American universities.

Reports of
attempts at manipulating western scholarship began to surface
in earnest by the mid-1990s. As reported in the Hellenic Nationalist
Page

“Turkey
has intensified her attemptsto spread her propaganda
to internationally renowned universities around the world…in the
Chronicle of Higher Education, Amy Magarao Rubin exposes the Turkish
attempts at historic revisionism…fraud and influence
of appointments is being mentioned…”

[Hellenic
nationalist Page - See Web References

It has been
ten years since that report was put forward to US government officials
and universities. Not only has that report has been quietly shelved,
but the very warnings of that report are now being realized. For
the first time in civilized human history, politics is being allowed
to influence academia. Put simply, major western (mainly English
language) universities are accommodating and promoting pan-Turanian
ideology. Note the following review by Kazakh Professor Doulatbek Khidirbekughli’s of Schoeberlein’s
“Mysterious Eurasia” which was hosted by Harvard University’s Eurasian
Studies Society (CESS):

“Ten thousand
years ago, ancestors of the Turkic tribes inhabited Central
Eurasia. These Turkic Eurasian tribes migrated
in all directions. During this great migration of peoples, they
influenced the cultures of the European peoples, including
Western Christianity, as well as the cultures of the …Chinese
civilizations in the East…Some of these subsequently crossed the Bering
Strait, forming the stock from which some Native
American peoples descended. In Western Eurasia
contact between Turkic and Germanic peoples came with the fall
of the Roman Empire as the Huns settled
in Europe.”

Recall
the discussion in Part I, item 2, where we noted of Professor Silahi
Diker’s claims of a 10,000 year civilizational legacy of the Turks
as harbingers of world civilization (item 2a) and as the ancestors
of the North American Indians (item 2g). Central to this argument
is the fraudulent fallacy that “Turkic
tribes inhabited Central Eurasia” (item 2l)
as far back as 10,000 years ago. As noted in Part 1, item 2l,
Turkic tribes arrived much later into Central
Asia, with the earliest penetrations occurring in the 3rd century
BC. The professor is retroactively Turcifying all earlier non-Turkic
peoples of the steppes. As noted previously, pan-Turanian academics
repeatedlyconfuse facts on the ground today with past history.
Thanks to universities such as Harvard, a fringe racialist ideology
formed in 1920s Turkey is now being given a prestigious academic
platform to propagate and disseminate its false and divisive doctrines
into mainstream western society.

(b)
CSIS.

Virtually
unnoticed is another powerful lobby known as the Centre for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS) (see http://www.csis.org/
in web references). The CSIS website shows the powerful interest of
petroleum and geopolitical lobbies with respect to the Republic of
Azerbaijan. A very revealing link is entitled “Caspian Sea Region”
(see http://parstimes.com/Caspian.html
in Web References). This link reveals at least 21 academic and
governmental organizations involved with “Caspian Studies”.

This is all
a very recent development, and it is curious as to why so many
academic outlets have virtually mushroomed – and what purpose
these organizations serve. A quick study reveals famous names such
as the University of Bremen, University of Indiana, University of
Michigan, Berkeley, Virginia Tech University, Columbia and Harvard
University. There is also a link to “Iran” on the top menu bar which
shows surprising detail on that nation’s natural resources, especially
on the Caspian Sea.

(c)
Dr. Brenda Shaffer.

The leading
western academic outlet providing support for pan-Turanian ambitions
in Iranian Azerbaijan is the Caspian Studies Program at Harvard
University (see http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/?program=CSP
in Web References). The Research Director of the
Caspian Studies Project is Brenda Shaffer

Dr.
Brenda Shaffer is an American-born and Israeli-educated research director
of HarvardUniversity's Caspian Studies Program. Her program is mainly funded by major
oil companies and the US-Azeri Chamber of Commerce, which
itself enjoys extensive funding by various anti-Iran economic and
political interests. Despite her apparent profile as an academic,
Shaffer has become a highly active proponent for the destruction
of the state of Iran, by way of her political advocacy
for Azerbaijani separatism. This is reflected
in her writings as well as regular appearances in the media outlets
of the US[vii], Britain[viii], Europe, Turkey and the Republic of Azerbaijan. She
regularly appears in separatist Azerbaijani gatherings as a guest
speaker. Previous to her Harvard posting, Dr. Shaffer served in Israel as a policy analyst, intelligence agent and in the Israeli Defence
Forces.

Shaffer’s
book, Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani
Identity (see References – see book jacket below) claims to have
proven that no such thing as a unifying collective Iranian identity
exists.

ShafferBK

Shaffer
also claims to have “objective proof” that the bulk of Azerbaijanis
wish to separate from Iran.
Shaffer’s textbook has become a standard reference for Washington
Analysts, who regularly defer to Dr. Shaffer’s apparent “expertise”
in Caspian and Iranian affairs[ix] - she is in fact a prolific writer
on the Caspian and Iran.
The confidence of the distinguished gentlemen in Washington is rather misplaced, as Dr. Shaffer has relied on Soviet methods
of historiography. The aforementioned Professor Atabaki
(of Iranian Azerbaijani descent) has provided a book review of Dr.
Shaffer’s text – and with his permission, some of his direct reports
are reproduced below (along with my humble comments):

1)
“Within the first two chapters, however, the reader becomes
disappointed with the unbalanced and sometimes even biased
political appraisal which not only dominates the author’s methodology
but also shapes her selective amnesia in recalling historical
data…shortcomings in Shaffer’s study are vivid, both in regard to methodology and the data she offers us…”

Recall
our discussions with respect to how the history of Babak Khorramdin,
Sattar Khan, and the Safavids have been re-narrated by pan-Turanian
ideologues. Professor Atabaki’s description of Dr. Shaffer’s “selective
amnesia in recalling historical data” reminds us of the late
Dr. Elchibey discussed earlier.

Had
Shaffer’s text appeared during the Soviet era, her writing style would
be indistinguishable from contemporary Stalinist history books. This
is because she skilfully omits information that contradicts her
views.

This
is especially evident in Shaffer’s following statement:

"Amir
Ali Lakhrudi, chairman of the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan
and a witness to the December 12 (Azer 21) takeover in Tabriz, stated
that when Tehran retook the city, 30,000 people were killed and 300,000 deported
and 10,000 immigrated to Soviet (north) Azerbaijan."

As
we noted in Part II (item 1e), there were no mass deportations, arrests
or killings. Most importantly, there was no indigenous resistance
to Tehran (item 1e). Dr. Shaffer’s methodology is indeed beset by selective
amnesia.

2)
“…Shaffer insists on mapping out the purely ethnic dimensions…one would expect arguments based on fieldwork among rural
as well as urban Azerbaijanis in Iran as well as in the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Unfortunately, her fieldwork is limited to interviews with some
Iranian Azerbaijanis, elite individuals living in the Diaspora,
often driven by strong political motivations. Obviously studying
ethnic sentiments and identity in present- day Iranwithout conducting all-inclusive fieldwork inside
Iran is inequitable...the author has not always observed
academic accuracy in presenting data

In short,
Dr. Shaffer of Harvard University is engaging in biased data selection
– any Doctoral candidate or Professor caught engaging in such practices
(i.e. violation of academic accuracy) would be failed and expelled
from any reputable university and their credentials would
be permanently stripped. To put it bluntly, biased data selection
is the statistical equivalent of lying.

This is glaringly
evident in the way Shaffer misrepresents the 1918 journal Azarbayjan,
Joz'‑i la-yanfakk-i Iran (Azerbaijan, an Inseparable
Part of Iran). Shaffer only refers to its title as “Azarbayjan”,
and omits the rest of the title. Why? Because if she also included
Joz'‑i la-yanfakk-i Iran (Azerbaijan, an Inseparable
Part of Iran), this would contradict the message she is trying to
get across: that the journal is an expression of an implied “separatist”
identity. Once again, this is a prime example of “cut and paste”
Stalinist scholarship.

These practices
are not only tolerated but apparently encouraged by Dr. Shaffer’s
sponsors in the US government. This is tragic, as this is the case
of the blind leading the blind. People like Brenda Shaffer
will only widen the chasm of misunderstanding between the United
States and the people of Iran.

3)
“…she (Brenda Shaffer) asserts that “the
[Islamic] revolution’s failure to bring significant democratization
attracted some [Iranian] Azerbaijanis, who had previously identified
themselves chiefly as Iranians, to ethnic-based messages” (p. 79)
and notes that “anti-Iranian sentiments …run high in the Republic
of Azerbaijan” (p. 164). In neither case does she offer documentary
evidence supporting her argument.”

This is similar
to pan-Turanian scholarship. Arguments and “evidence” are always claimed
(or invented), yet the only real “evidence” is the statement itself.
Dr. Shaffer’s blanket statement that “anti-Iranian sentiments
…run high in the Republic of Azerbaijan”
is highly selective and is in fact untrue. Many highly educated academics
in the Republic of Azerbaijan reject the Soviet-style historiography
that Dr. Shaffer is reviving

This
has been aptly expressed by the late Professor Zia Boniyadov (former
academic of the Oriental Studies Institute of Soviet Azerbaijan) during
a visit to Tehran in early 1989[x].

Ziya

Professor
Boniyadov noted that much of the historical claims of pan-Turanian
ideology against Iranian Azerbaijan (i.e. “division” of “Greater Azerbaijan” by Iran and Russia) have
their academic roots in the Stalinist era of the former Soviet Union[xi]. Boniyadov has noted that much
of the claims for Iran’s
destruction are “…Stalinist policies and expansionist…those
who now pursue such policies in the name of ‘culture’…are simply the
followers of Bagherov and Heidar Aliev and Stalin…”[xii].
It would seem that these statements were not to the liking of certain
elements – the Professor was mysteriously murdered in his homeland
in 1997. Viewpoints such as Boniyadov’s have been conveniently ignored
by regional “experts” such as Shaffer, simply because they fail to
validate her beliefs.

4)
“…In conclusion, Borders and Brethren
is an excellent example of how a political agenda can dehistoricize
and decontextualize history...”

The key term
is “political agenda” – this is what pays Dr. Shaffer’s
salary. To put it mildly, Dr. Shaffer is telling the petroleum and
geopolitical lobbies what they wish to hear, and they reward her with
the proverbial “funding” and wide media and conference exposure. Is
it I who is being overly alarmist, or is there a process of “academicprostitution” taking place?

The
fact that Dr. Shaffer relies on pan-Turanian and Stalinist schools
of “scholarship” does not appear to be of much consequence to her
supporters. This is interesting as Soviet propaganda as a whole has
generally been regarded as a laughing stock in the west. One example
of comical historical revisionism were claims by Soviet “historians”
that it was the Russians who invented the steam engine! If
I may be so bold, I would suggest that Professors Diker and Shaffer
consider collaborating with each other – after all, their methodologies
and mindsets do intersect to a great extent.

Modern
western scholarship seems to be selectively reviving past Soviet
Stalinist historiography and collaborating with pan-Turanian activists
to achieve the disintegration of Iran.

(5) Geopolitics & Re-inventing History: The Macedonia Example.

Persia is not the only
country which has witnessed its historical icons and geographical
names hijacked in the quest to manufacture new nation-states. This
has also happened in the Balkans, namely against Greece.
There are two similarities between the “Greater
Azerbaijan” and “Macedonia Resurrected” projects.

(a) Changing Skopje
to the Republic of Macedonia.

As noted previously, the
Yugoslav Federation disintegrated in the 1990s. One
of the former federated regions, which had a pre-dominantly Bulgarian-speaking
Slavic majority, appropriated the ancient Hellenic geographical
designation “Macedonia”. This region was previously
known as “Skopje” – the actual Macedonia remains mostly
in modern Greece. Not surprisingly, a number of Greeks
have suggested that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia be referred
to by its former name: Skopje.

Note how this process is
virtually identical to the way in which Albania/Arran was renamed
as “Azerbaijan”, when in fact the real historical Azerbaijan
has always resided in Persia (Part II, item 1).

The
“Macedonia Resurrected” project not only threatens Greek
territorial integrity, but the very basis of her culture
and identity. Like anti-Iran Azerbaijan projects, there are now fraudulent
“academic” projects endeavouring to prove that Macedonia was never historically Greek but
“Macedonian”. Even the very Hellenic origins of Alexander and his
father Phillip are being doubted by a select group of “experts”.

(b)Retroactive
De-Hellenization & Petroleum Diplomacy.

The appropriation of geographical
nomenclature has been immediately followed with claims to the Macedonian
legacy of ancient Greece and all of the associated icons
of that legacy. The Hellenic legacy of Phillip of Macedon, Alexander
the Great and Macedonia is being rejected. This is a process called
Retroactive De-Hellenization.

Again a quick study of
archival documents contradicts the de-Hellenization of Macedonia.
The term “Phillip” is derived from the Greek stem words “Phil”
(to love) and “Hippos” (horses) – literally translated as “one
who is affectionate to/loves horses”. “Alexander” is broadly
translated as “the protector of men”. A handful of references
below serve to illustrate the Hellenic legacy of Macedonia:

"...Now
surely, as they all talk the same language, they ought to be
able to find a better way of settling their differences...In any case,
the Greeks, with their absurd notions of warfare, never even thought
of opposing me when I led my army to Macedonia".

[Herodotus commenting
on the invasion of Greece by Darius the Great of Persia – Book
VII 417-418 - see References]

"...but
the Dorians on the contrary have been constantly on the move;
their home in Deucalion's reign was Phthiotis and in the reign of
Dorus son of Hellen the country known as Histiaeotis in the neighbourhood
of Ossa and Olympus; driven from there by the Cadmeians they settled
in Pindus and were known as Macedons; thence they migrated
to Dryopis, and finally to the Peloponnese, where they got
their present name of Dorians."

[Herodotus commenting
on the Greek tribes of Dorians, Ionians, Aeolians, who were originally
known as Macedones according to Herodotus – Book Book I 56 - see References]

Nevertheless,
these facts seem to matter little. It is as if by the stroke of a
pen, the Hellenic legacy of Macedonia is to be erased by those harboring
a geopolitical agenda. This appears to be fitting
into the larger scheme of the new Petroleum diplomacy.

As
noted above, Skopje (renamed Republic of Macedonia) is a
former province
of Yugoslavia and neatly sits astride the pipeline
route. In that endeavor, even history is to be changed to fit
contemporary geo-economics. It is no co-incidence that the
“Macedonia Resurrected” project is now funded by the same Soros
Foundation which helped finance the bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia – all in the latent aim of pipeline politics.

(c)South SlavMacedonian Nationalism.

Meanwhile the south Slav
(Bulgarian-speaking?) residents of former Skopje view themselves as
the heirs of a de-Hellenicized “Macedonia” which claims many facets
of ancient Greek culture, and territory. Like pan-Turanian ideologues,
no acknowledgement is made with respect to the fact that the
south Slavs migrated to Skopje centuries after the foundation
of ancient Greece. Similar to Professors Dikler (Turkey) and Khidirbekughli
(Kazakhestan), facts on the ground today are deliberately confused
with ancient history. Macedonian “nationalists”, like the Grey
Wolves are impervious to objective archival and historical information.
Faith-based nationalismand political orientation often
results in the process of Cognitive Dissonance.

(6)
Geopolitics and Psychological warfare

(a) Manufacturing
Victims

Renowned
clinical psychologist Dr. Tana Dineen (see references) notes
that “Victim-making is part of …fabrications and illusions…(p.35)”.
Dr. Dineen speaks of the abuse that’s been occurring in the field
of psychology. Her statements are just as valid in the field of geopolitical
manipulation. She notes that the process of “Manufacturing
Victims” involves

“…exaggerated
claims, unsupported “expert opinions”, sweeping public
statements based on minimal or questionable data, broad
generalizations…to understand this “other history” one
must consider…how…”facts” were created or distorted
to prove a biased view or to support a political or financial
interest” (p.107

Professional
cultural agitators such as Mr. Chehreganli and Dr. Brenda Shaffer
certainly fit the criteria in the clinical sense. Both have “created
or distorted“ information and are regularly consulted in order
to solicit their “expert opinions” on Iranian Azerbaijan
and Azerbaijanis in general. Recall our discussion in Part II, where
Chehreganli has literally “created” a new history for
Sattar Khan (Part II, item 5) and Babak Khorramdin (Part II, item
6). Chehreganli has also “distorted” the details of
the Soviet supported Pishevari movement in 1946.

As seen in
item 4c, Professor Atabaki has exposed Dr. Shaffer’s text as being
riveted with “…exaggerated claims…sweeping public statements
based on minimal or questionable data, broad generalizations”.
The aim of Dr. Brenda Shaffer, Mr. Mahmudali Chehreganli, the UAM
and similar organizations is to “manufacture” Azerbaijanis
as “victims”. Claims of Azerbaijani “victimhood” are masking
a nefariously destructive ideology. As noted by Dineen, manufacturing
victims serves to “to prove a biased view or to support a political
or financial interest”.

Manufacturing
victims is part of the “deception” of oil diplomacy,
described earlier by Engdahl (item 3): media portrayals of “victims”
are simply another sophisticated tool in that “deception”.
The Yugoslav tragedy was in reality a gross travesty that witnessed
the vitimhood of all Yugoslavs – nevertheless the Serbs
were disproportionately villified in the press. The same is true
with respect to Iranians today (see item 7).

(b) False
Flag Incidents.

One of the
classic weapons of manufacting victims is the use of False Flag
incidents. This is the situation of creating a violent incident
and staging it as to falsely implicate an innocent party. The main
objective of False Flag incidents is to manufacture victims
to further a wider geopolitical agenda

Although
concrete evidence has yet to surface, Imperial Britain is said to
have utilized such practices in their India colony to pit Muslims,
Sikhs and Hindus against each other. A more recent example of a False
Flag incidents has been reported in present-day Basra, Iraq by Christopher
Bollyn of the American Free Press (see Web references):

“…After
shooting and killing Iraqi police and civilians in Basra, two British
agents from the Special Air Service (SAS)…disguised as suicide
bombers from the Mehdi Army, were caught "red-handed"
in a car loaded with explosives… Paul Wood of the BBC said the two
British agents “…weapons, explosives and communications gear are standard
kit for British special forces"…The two bearded British agents
had been wearing black wigs and disguised as members of
… the Mehdi Army…commonly employed tactic of "false flag
terrorism"…Arab disguises are meant to guarantee that eyewitnesses of whatever
terror operation the men were involved in saying that it been
carried out by Iraqis.”

Iranians have accused
British operatives of having been involved in recent “ethnic clashes”
in Iran’s Khuzestan province. These involve dressing
up as Arabs, spraying anti-Iran graffiti on walls, inciting
anti-Persian feelings among local Arabs, etc. All of these claims
are vociferously rejected by the British, who in turn accuse
the Iranians of being involved in covert anti-British activities in
Basra.

Nevertheless, the question
of British complicity can be raised in relation to the capture of
eight British servicemen by Iranian authorities on June
21, 2004. While the British alleged that the servicemen were engaged
in patrol boat training, the Iranians noted that the servicemen had
clearly violated Iranian territorial waters[xv].
The servicemen were later repatriated to British authorities without
incident.

Close
examination of the servicemen’s equipment appears to undermine the
British claim of having been solely engaged in river patrol training.
The gentlemen were carrying spy cameras[xvi],
detailed maps of Iranian territory[xvii],
and satellite communications equipment[xviii]
when they were captured. Militarily, such equipment is standard to
personnel engaged in intelligence gathering on hostile territory[xix] as opposed to routine river
patrol training, where such equipment is unnecessary.

It
is also interesting that many of these so-called “ethnic clashes”
have been happening nearly simultaneously. As noted in Part
III, item 3, Grey Wolf activists have been also working hard to
create false flag incidents in Iranian Azerbaijan. So far,
their efforts appear to have been unsuccessful. It is highly likely
that the anti-Iran Kurdish separatist “Pezhak” organization (see item
9) has engaged in False Flag incdients in the recent riots in Iranian
Kurdistan recently.

(7) Manipulation of Western
Media.

In
addition to their successes in western academia, pan-Turanian writers
have been gaining steady support in the western (esp. English-speaking)
world. As will be seen below, many media outlets are inadvertently
becoming virtual mouthpieces for organizations such as the Grey Wolves.

The August
2000 issue of Celator (an academic journal for numismatic studies)
published the following letter by Dean Sirigos

“…Turkey’s
current nationalist ideology…seeks to deny the area’s (Asia
Minor) Hellenic past. Tragically much of the mainstream
US media have ratified this
false revisionism, for example by identifying Ephesus
as an “an ancient Turkish city” (CNN, 11/16/99)
and … without references to their ancient Greek or Hellenistic
past”.

In
1993, the editor in Chief of the prestigious Turkish newspaper, Hurriyet,
Erturul Ozdok made the following statement to New York Times
correspondent, Alan Cowell:

“For
us, the Bosnian Muslims are Turks”

The
only element binding modern Turks to Bosnians is the Muslim religion;
otherwise there is nothing else in common. Bosnians speak South
Slav languages closely akin to Serbo-Croatian and are ethnic
south Slavs. Turks speak an Altaic language unrelated
to Indo-European languages. What Mr. Ozdok is stating is based on
ideologicalbeliefs, not objective facts. Cowell passively
accepted Ozdok’s statements without the slightest effort at questioning
their validity. Cowell then reported the following observation of
the Turks made with respect to the Bosnians in the New York Times:

“…apowerful sentiment toward their religious and ethnic kin…”

[New
York Times, January 19, 1993,
p.A9]

Space
limitations do not allow for the plethora of misinformed quotes now
mushrooming in the western media; however one striking example was
reported to the writer by a French Professor (who does not wish to
be identified on-line):

“I
recall many years ago watching a French TV talk-show program
about the Kurds…the program then stated that the Kurds are a Turkish
race…an audience participant who was Kurdish rose from her seat
and angrily protested stating that Kurds speak an Iranian language
and that Kurds are not Turks…the speaker simply paused and moved on
with the program…”

Let
us revisit the aforementioned Professor Günseli Renda,
who recently stated in London, in the presence of the Turkish ambassador
to England (Akın Alptuna) that “…the Ottoman sultans were descendants of
Adam”. Professor
Renda’s presentations were attended byBBC
producer-speaker Michael Buerk (he stands
at left next to Ambassador Akın Alptuna – photo below).

BBC

It
is here where we must pause for thought. Professor Renda and Ambassador
Alptuna may be excused – they may truly believe that the Ottoman Sultans
were direct descendants of Adam. What is far more intriguing is what
BBC producer Michael Buerk truly thinks of Adam and his “Ottoman descendants”?
His pleasant smile belies the latent nature of his convictions.

Mr.
Chehreganli has been allowed to appear
in New York City parades in order to gain a wider (western)
audience for his separatist agenda (see photo below – Chehreganli
at left and wearing a red ribbon):

SANAMNY

Note
flags and the caption (barely legible) “South Azerbaijan National
Awakening Movement”. It would appear that support for Iran’s destruction is becoming more overt and direct. It may be only a
matter of time before the “Azerbaijan issue” begins to hit mainstream western media outlets.

(8) Iranians as Negative Propaganda Targets

The promotion
of separatism in Iran has been highly facilitated by the incessant
portrayal of Iranians as negative propaganda targets. The Serbs
were also vilified just prior to the partitioning of Yugoslavia. Iranians
however have been the target of over twenty five years of negative
media portrayals. Popular entertainment personalities such as
radio host Howard Stern (below left photo) are on record as
having stated "Kill all Iranians, Kill
them". Actors George Clooney (in “Peacemaker”-
below middle photo) and Chuck Norris (in “The Hitman” – below
right photo) have both used derogatory language against Iran and Iranians in their movies. One can
only imagine what would happen to Mr.s Stern, Clooney and Norris if
they dared used such language against any other ethnic group. They
would be banished from the entertainment industry for good.

SternClooney]
Norris

It may be
no exaggeration to state that Iranians are the most vilified and
negatively portrayed people in the Anglo-Saxon media today. The
majority of North Americans hold very irrational and inaccurate
views of Iranians. The very word “Iran” evokes a knee-jerk reaction
among most North Americans. “Iran” is now associated with abstractions
such as “evil”, “terrorist”, or “fundamentalist”.

As noted
by the author in previous writings, the majority of North Americans
believe the Iranians to be Arabs. Simplistic abstractions and
irrational beliefs have led to substandard reporting among many prestigious
English language news outlets such as The Washington
Times. Note the following quote by Editor Arnaud
de Borchgrave (see photo below)

“TIME's Michael Ware nailed down the details of Iran's plans
to create a greater Iranian Shiite empire…Iran's objective
could be a civil war between Shia Muslim and Sunni Muslim that would
1) encourage the U.S. to pull out its troops post-haste rather than
be caught in the middle, and 2) secure Shia Iraq for a greater Shia
Islam. The eastern Saudi oilfields, where Shia Arabs are in the majority,
would then be one small Kuwait away”

What is most
shocking regarding Mr. de Borchgrave’s
statement is the very fact that it is taken seriously by western (mainly
North American) readers. The notion of a “greater
Iranian Shiite empire” is as logically absurd and untenable
as a “greater Italian Catholic
empire”. Catholic Ukrainians, Poles, Frenchman, Fillipinos,
Spaniards, etc. are no more likely (or willing) to join Italy in a
“greater Italian Catholic empire” than are Saudi,
Iraqi, Kuwaiti, etc Arabs within a “greater
Iranian Shiite empire”.

It seems
that Mr. de Borchgrave has failed to grasp the distinction
religion and nationality. As for “Iran's objective could be a civil war between Shia Muslim and
Sunni Muslim”,
Mr. de Borchgrave fails to realize that sectarian instability
within Iraq also threatens Iran’s own geopolitical
stability. Simply put, Iran
has nothing to gain from a potential civil war in a neighbouring country. The level of intellectual sophistication exhibited
by Mr. de Borchgrave appears to rival that of Mr. Howard Stern mentioned
earlier.

Editors
such as Mr. de Borchgrave
have no interest in exploring the possibility that Iranians
can be well-adjusted three-dimensional human beings. Perhaps Mr.
de Borchgrave is unaware that Iranians today are among the
most highly educated and successful immigrants in the United
States and Canada (see report by Karen Kelly in Web References).
Facts such as these never make it to the evening news. Professor
James Bill has provided a rare and balanced view of the present
state of affairs:

“…the
masses of Iranian people…hold warm feelings toward…American
citizens…the American public has not been so forgiving…public
opinion surveys consistently reveal that Americans consider Iran
to be the least popular country in the world…distorted and
simplistic mass media representations, such as the widely distributed
Hollywood film “Not Without My Daughter!” (see poster below),
question the very civility and humanity of Iranians…some officials
such as former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, have
had a personal, visceral dislike of Iran…”

[]James A.
Bill, Iran and the United States: A Clash of Hegemonies, Middle East
Report, 212, p.45, 1999].

Sally Field

As noted
by Professor Bill, irrational views regarding Iranians are displayed
at the highest levels. This has resulted in a very unique phenomenon:
re-writing the Persian chapter of human history. Fatema
Soudavar Farmanfarmaian has duly noted of the current relentless assault
on the heritage of Persian civilization in Afghanistan, Central Asia,
the Caucasus, the Indian subcontinent, The Near East, The Persian
Gulf and The Islamic World, a process fully supported by the aforementioned
geopolitical lobbies:

“…A
not too hidden agenda to deny or… ignore the far-reaching
cultural influence of Iran …When the Soviet Union disintegrated, very few were aware that
the liberated countries of its southern republics (i.e. AzerbaijanRepublic) had histories
and cultures linked with Iran. The realization of
this fact must have come as a shock to the governments of
Western nations. The result was pressure on scholars to
revise their writings and reattribute to others the
chapters hitherto devoted to 'Iran extérieur'…In more recent
times pan-Turkists and Stalinists, though at odds with
each other, had tried hard … to erase all remaining traces of Persian
…Their example has inspired a new breed of imperialist nation-builders
who, in turn, use their clout to distort history, for immediate
purposes or as a reward to nations in need of creating an identity
for themselves from the many strands of that of Greater Iran”

[Fatema
Soudavar Farmanfarmaian, The Other Terror (Parts I & II), posted
on Iranian.com, see Web References]

Iranians
as a whole have become propaganda targets. Their identity,
culture, history, and legacy are at stake. But the silent assault
goes much further: Professor Bill has noted that the very humanity
and civility of the Iranians are now under siege. All of this makes
perfect sense if we transcend the domain of morality and view
the situation from a geopolitical and economic perspective.
All the areas eyed by petroleum giants such as BP, Shell or
Chevron are presently in Iranian territory or reside in areas that
have a mighty Persian legacy (e.g. the Caucasus).
To successfully appropriate those energy deposits, the very legacy
and idea of Persia
must be destroyed. This means that the
very dignity in one being a citizen of “Eire-An” or Persia must be eliminated:

“A review of a book by Christin Marschall…
has her quoting an official of the State Department in Abu Dhabi that
American policy in the Persian Gulf in the 1980s aimed at "securing
the free flow of oil at reasonable prices, freedom of navigation
and the support of the friendly Arab regimes in the area." And
the main threat to that policy was Iran, the quote adds, because of the "policy of
its government, [but also because of] Iranian society and the
pride that comes with being Iranian."

[Fatema
Soudavar Farmanfarmaian, The Other Terror (Parts I & II), posted
on Iranian.com, see Web References]

Ms.
Farmanfarmaian’s succinct reporting should give the Iranian and non-Iranian
reader pause for thought. The real propaganda targets are thepeople of Iran, irrespective of who holds the
reigns of power in Tehran. Promotion and support for characters such as Mr. Chehreganli is wholly
consistent with the policy of critically undermining “Iranian society and the pride that comes with being Iranian”.
In the endeavour to dismember Iran, Mr. Chehreganli (with a whole lot of help from his geopolitical friends)
is at the forefront in assaulting the very pride that is seen as “the main threat” to “the free flow of oil at reasonable prices”.

Media
outlets, once the guardians of truth and objective reporting, seem
to steer towards sensational and vindictive journalism whenever Iranians
are involved. Portraying Iranians as negative propaganda targets is
wholly consistent with the long-term objectives of Petroleum diplomacy.

The
Bernard Lewis Project is using the Grey Wolves to implement its goal
of fragmenting the Middle East into mini-states. Grey
Wolf activists may have forgotten one small detail: the Bernard
Lewis plan also targets Turkey for partitioning.
Ironically, the Grey Wolves are ultimately acting in the worst interests
of Turkey. Their dream to fragment Iran into mini-states will only endanger Turkey’s own territorial integrity, as most of the world’s Kurds live in
eastern Anatolia.

A
large number of Turks are wary of Kurdish separatism and suspect
foreign complicity, an allegation that is not entirely unfounded.
An amazing piece of anecdotal information was provided to me by two
Georgian nationals who were visiting Turkey in the spring of 2002. On an Istanbul ferry, they met an American officer
who stated to them, in no uncertain terms:

“We
like the Kurds…we can use them to partition the entire region, I guess
the Turks should be reasonable and mature and accept this and
just let the Kurds go…”

There
is no independent corroboration for this statement, nor has the name
of this alleged person been identified. Also, we have no way of knowing
if this officer was expressing a personal opinion or reflecting the
mindset of his paymasters. If true however, this statement appears
to confirm what many Turks have been suspecting all along: that the
west is cynically supporting pan-Turanianism to create a
war between the Turks and their neighbours while plotting Turkey’s
own internal disintegration behind their backs.

This
may explain the recent attempts at reaching out to Iran, Greece and Armenia. These are very positive steps, however
the Turks are still supporting and promoting Grey Wolf activities
within Iran and the
Caucasus (and presumably elsewhere). SANAM
continues to be supported as well.

There
are possible reasons for this. First, the Turkish economy has been
rescued a number of times by the IMF.Turkishties
to western geopolitical lobbies are very strong. Simply put, they
may not have much choice or room to manoeuvre “Because of US
(Financial-IMF loans, etc.) largesse and Turkish dependency
on such funds…” (Olson, p.181 – see references).

Second,
Turks have suspected that Iran has supported the separatist PKK party as well as fundamentalist groups.
This is somewhat interesting as the major aid for the PKK has came
from a variety of western sources, including Greece and England. The British are widely suspected by the Turks as having incited
the Kurds to revolt against the new Turkish Republic in 1925[xx], in an attempt to weaken the
Turkish bargaining position over the future of the ex-Ottoman vilayet
(province) of Mosul[xxi]. Both
Med-TV (see logo below) and its successor Medya-TV have been
noted for their close links to the PKK. The broadcasts of Med-TV
were made from Brussels
and operated under license from the London-based Independent Television
Commission for much of the 1990s[xxii].
The Turkish government did manage to persuade the British to drop
their sponsorship of the Med-TV[xxiii],
however this only resulted in the creation of a new station, Medya-TV,
which apparently broadcasts with British sponsorship.

MedTV

The
Turks may also not be aware of how anti-Iranian the PKK movementis. Essentially a Stalinist and Communist movement at its inception,
the PKK relied on Stalinist historical manuals, which conveyed
a verystrong anti-Persian message. A satellite branch
of the PKK known as “Pezhak” has been active in Iran
recently, working hard to promote bloodshed and ethnic violence
between Persians and Kurds. The PKK has worked very hard to culturally
distance the Kurds from their historical associations with Persia – the Nowruz is now called by PKK ideologues as the “Kurdish New
Year”. Iranians as a whole have a natural cultural and historical
affinity to the Kurds, who are their ethnic cousins. Instead, the
PKK has indoctrinated anti-Persian attitudes for decades. These attitudes
are also prevalent among organizations such as the PUK, and KDP in
Iraq as well as the Komala and KDP wing within Iran.

To
summarize, the Iranians are as suspicious of the PKK (and similar
organizations) as are the Turks. Although the gentlemen of
the PKK, PUK, KDP, etc, may disagree, the Kurds too are simply another
element of the Bernard Lewis plan for the Near
East (see also item 10).

Turkish
Islamic fundamentalist groups are Sunni
and as such have been generously funded by the Bin-Laden style
Madrasah systems of Saudi Arabia.
The Madrasahs are vehemently anti-Persian. Whatever the truth
of alleged Iranian complicity, there are no genuine calls for cooperation
between iran and Turkey – as indicated by the recent high profile Turkish visits to Iran. The problem however is that no action
is being taken to stop Grey Wolf activists from destabilizing their
neighbours. As noted before, Turkish hands may be tied. More nefariously,
the genie of racialism is out of the bottle; racialists often go against
the policies of their governments (recall Tansu Ciller discussed earlier
in this on-line book)

This
being said, Turkey
is still a democracy, and the people have made themselves heard. Public
pressure forced the Turkish government to reject American requests
for assistance in the Iraq invasion. As noted before, the Turkish populace is educated, has a voice,
and makes itself felt. Thanks to the Turkish people, cooler heads
may yet prevail. However, time is running out. Vast sums of money
have already been spent for over two decades by geopolitical lobbies
to create a heartrending and tragic conflict.

Are
the Turks being set-up? In the humble opinion of this writer, the
answer is yes. Simply put, a role has been neatly scripted for Turkey – that of a geopolitical partner to western geopolitical/Petroleum
interests. The Turkish role is to facilitate the projection of military
and economic might into the Caucasus, Iran, the Near East and the Persian Gulf. This “script” has been aptly summarized by Zalmay Khalilzad, Ian
Lesser and Stephen Larabee (see references):

“Turkey
is ideally suited to play a vital role to ensure security both
in the Persian Gulf and in the CaspianBasin. Turkish military facilities
provide an excellent location for projecting power to
both regions…”(p.85)

The Turks
have been conveniently assigned the role of foot soldiers in the upcoming
Petroleum wars. The report by the Khalizad team was prepared by
the Center for Middle East Public Policy-National Security Research
Division for the Smith-Richardson Foundation. This very same report
mobilizes Pan-Turanian ideology as an instrument of foreign policy:

“Turks
already consider the CaspianBasin as very important because
of ethnic ties” (p.85)

But what
about the ethnic ties between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Caucasus
to Persia and modern day Iranians? It would appear that Khalilzad
is selectively adopting Grey Wolf rhetoric to cynically promote a
wider Petroleum agenda. It is precisely that agenda that is putting
the Turks in danger. We have already noted how Grey Wolf chauvinism
has resulted in a Greek-Iranian-Armenian alliance. Further geopolitical
tensions may lead to a series of tragic Turkish-Iranian, Turkish-Armenian
and possibly Turkish-Russian conflicts. Such a calamity must be
avoided – peace, rationality, cooperation, and dialogue are the only
alternatives.

As noted
repeatedly in this article, the majority of Turks reject Grey Wolf
activism and favor accommodation, trade, and expansion of ties
with the Iranians. The same is true with respect to mainstream
Turkish attitudes to Greece and Armenia. The majority of Turks are
aware of the very rich cultural links between them and the Persian
world, Greece and the Caucasus. All of these
peoples enjoy many deep-rooted cultural ties, a fact vehemently rejected
by racist ideologues from all sides.

Many
of the intelligentsia of the Republic
of Azerbaijan are
also wary of geological machinations in the Caucasus.
Farhad Husseinov, a democratic activist from the Republic of Azerbaijan, notes
of cynical western support for anti-Democratic autocrats in Central
Asia and the Caucasus.
Husseinov further adds that:

“Azerbaijan
is the latest victim of this sacrifice of freedom in the pursuit
of stability. A country of 8.5 million people - roughly half of whom
live in poverty… it is preparing for parliamentary elections in early
November. Baku, the capital, is the next obvious candidate for a democratic
revolution of the kind witnessed in Georgia and Ukraine. At stake are the multibillion-dollar investments of oil
giants like BP and Chevron… The incumbent president, Ilham Aliyev,
is a Soviet-educated autocrat who inherited power from his late father,
Geidar Aliyev, in late 2003 as a result of rigged elections
followed by a ruthless police crackdown. Opposition activists
were imprisoned and tortured. Yet the creation of the first
dynastic regime in the post-Soviet space was, incongruously, blessed
by the administration of George W. Bush.”

It
is interesting that the “Human Rights” organizations of the west are
silent with respect to the anti-Democratic policies in place in the
Republic of Azerbaijan. Citing such reports would be inconsistent with the economic interests
of the petroleum organizations moving into the Caucasus.

As
noted previously, there is no widespread antipathy against Iran in the AzerbaijanRepublic, irrespective of Dr. Shaffer’s beliefs.
An increasing number in fact are aware that Grey Wolf activism is
being ultimately propelled by “multibillion-dollar
…oil giants like BP and Chevron”.

(10) The Iranian Experience with Geopolitics & Petroleum Diplomacy.

(a) The
Same Old Story?

There
is nothing new in foreign powers trying to exploit Iran’s ethnic diversity in order to destroy it. The British have been entertaining this since the 18th
century. It is now acknowledged by British historians that, ever since
the 1880s:

“The
British would regularly toy with the idea of partitioning Persia, usually as a temporary
response to a crisis”

[Edward
Ingram, Britain’s Persian Connection 1798-1828: Prelude
to the Great Game in Asia, 1992, p.41.]

In
1907, Britain in an accord signed with Russia in 1905, practically
proposed to partition Persia into two distinct “spheres of influence”
(see map below) with the north awarded to Czarist Russia (blue area)
and the south to Britain (pink/red area); central area was to be a
“neutral’ zone (see Adelson, p. 59-62 in References).

Persia Divided

The
Iranians have witnessed numerous self-serving and cynical acts of
violent and forceful foreign interference into their internal affairs
in the recent history. This commentary has already noted the role of Britain and Russia in crushing the Iranian Constitutional Reform movement in Persia in the early 1900s. Professor Cosroe
Chaqueri, notes of the role performed by the Russians and the
British in crushing the first indigenous democracy movement of Western Asia. He describes:

“…democratic
aspirations of a people being crushed by savage Cossacks of…tsarist
Russia, with the cynical complicity of yet another European power,
Britain – all in the name of Western civilization”

[Chaqeri,
Cosroe, Origins of Social Democracy in Modern Iran, 2001, p.197].

The
Iranians subsequently witnessed the Petroleum diplomacy of British
Petroleum, who in collusion with the American CIA, overthrew
yet another indigenous and popularly elected government, led by Dr.
Mohammad Mossadegh (1882-1967) in 1953 (see photo below).

Mossadegh

There
is also nothing new with respect to the falsification of Persia’s history to suit short-term
business and geopolitical objectives.
Whole schools and faculties to that end were first invented in the
former Soviet Union – these have now been re-invigorated
in the West. The calls for the partitioning of Iran’s northwest in
the name of pan-Turanianism are as old as the Young Turk and Musavat
movements (Part I, Part II, item 1).

(b) The
Partitioning Agenda Continues

The
twentieth century witnessed the Soviet Union using its military presence
in occupied Iran to set up puppet mini-states among Iranian
Kurds and Azeris (Part II, item1e). Saddam Hussein and pan-Arab ideologues
targeted the Arabs of southwest Iran in an endeavour to have them separate and join “the Arab nation”.
There are also reports of efforts at inciting separatist passions
among the Baluchis of Southeast Iran.

These
efforts are still continuing, with many western universities having
founded academic institutions with an interest in partitioning
Iran(mainly in the United
States and Britain). In addition to Shaffer’s programs (item 4), there are others such
as the “Al-Ahwaz Studies” centre in Britain which endeavours to separate Iran’s Khuzestan province (see Web references). There are now “maps
of Arabistan” which claim a historical legitimacy in Khuzestan
dating back thousands of years (see map of the Al-Ahwaz society below,
refer to Web References):

What
is most interesting in this map is the way it depicts “the independent
nations of Baluchistan, and Kurdistan”. The Al-Ahwaz website makes a point
of co-operating with the “other oppressed peoples of Iran to support our mutual aims for national
liberation”. There are specific links to Chehreganli’s SANAM organization.
Interestingly, Mr. Chehreganli has himself made clear that he intends
to merge the activities of his organization with that of organizations
such as Al-Ahwaz.

Almost
predictably, the western world in the form of “Human Rights” and “Cultural”
organizations, are again throwing their support behind (yet another)
fringe racialist movement. This was preposterously demonstrated on
June 31st, 2005
when Pierre Pettigrew (Canadian Minister of Foreign affairs)
officially met with Rafiq Abu-Sharif, a seperatist representative
of the Al-Ahwaz organization (see Pettigrew at left and Abu-Sharif
at right):

Rafiq

According
to the Al-Ahwaz website, Abu-Sharif “…submitted a detailed letter
to Pettigrew…detailing the nationalities under oppression…in
Iran…”. Let us be clear by what Mr. Abu-Sharif means by “nationalities
under oppression…in Iran”. Abu-Sharif isn’t just referring to Iranian Arabs; he is simultaneously
advancing the cause of Mr. Chehreganli and Kurdish separatist groups.

How
would the distinguished Canadian Minister (himself a Francophone)
feel if a foreign nation was providing official recognition to the
FLQ (Front de Liberation du Quebec) terrorist and French separatist organization
of 1970s Quebec?

But
perhaps Mr. Pettigrew and other supporters of the Al-Ahwaz movement
have chosen to forget that Iran’s
Arabs rejected and fought against Mr. Saddam Hussein’s pan-Arabist
attempts at annexing Iran’s
Khuzestan province during the bloody 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war
(see photo below of Iranian Arabs preparing for battle against Saddam’s
forces invading Iran
in the 1980s):

Iran Arabs

The
only non-Arab is the professional soldier with the green beret, who
is training the Iranian Arabs on the use of a grenade launcher. There
are now serious attempts by Mr. Abu-Sharif and his organization to
re-write this part of Iran’s history – predictably with the support of certain geopolitical and Petroleum
lobbies.

There
is also strong funding and support for Kurdish anti-Iran academic
literature, personified by Dr. Mehrdad Izady (photo below
left) and his book (below right) – “The Kurds: A Concise Handbook”
(see References):

IzadyIzadyBK

The
book is a Kurdish version of the Soviet-Pishevari sponsored “Vatan
Dili” for Azerbaijan – it essentially writes out the Kurds from
the history of Persia and attempts to portray a “Kurdish nation”
(in an anti-Iranian context) that never was. This book has been celebrated
by anti-Near East individuals such as Daniel Pipes who has
noted that:

“…he
(Izady) provides copious bibliographic references for further
reading. Even Middle East specialists
will find almost everything in Izady's handbook … has done an exemplary job of bringing so much together in a clear
and reliable fashion”.

[See
Daniel Pipe’s web link in Web References]

The
reality is different however. Like other racist organizations such
as the pan-Turanian activists, Persian chauvinists or the Greek Chrysi
Avgi, Izady manufactures information. Many of his references,
when observed objectively, fail to support his assertions, making
his book decidedly unreliable. The book is laden with errors
and outright falsifications. One example is the claim that Ms.
Pari Zangeneh, a popular Iranian opera singer, is Kurdish, when
in fact Ms. Zangeneh has admitted to this author that she is not
Kurdish and originally hails from Kashan. The last name “Zangeneh”
originally derives from that of her ex-husband. Falsifications such
as these are typical of Mr. Izady’s Soviet-style historiography,
yet the book continues to be viewed by many western “experts” as a
valid source of information. Like Brenda Shaffer, and Mr. Chehreganli,
Dr. Izady has also been granted audience in front of the US
congress due to his “expertise”.

(c) Supporting
Racism to further The Bernard Lewis Plan

The Iranians
have already been the victims of racial hatred, most recently by pan-Arabism,
and now by the Islamic Fundamentalist followers of Mr. Osama Bin laden.
Pan-Arab racist literature has had the distinction of producing works
such as Khairullah Tulfah’s “Three Whom God should not have Created:
Iranians, Jews and Flies”. During the Iran-Iraq war, thousands
of not only Iraqi troops, but Arab volunteers from many Arab nations,
drew inspiration from the likes of Tulfa (For more information, refer
to Kaveh Farrokh’s article on pan-Arabism in Web References).

The CIA and
Pakistan intelligence generously funded and trained an anti-Persian
religious fanatic, Mr. Bin Laden up to the 1990s, in the effort to
eject the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Bin Laden was later courted
in the hope to set up a Central Asian pipeline across Afghanistan.
Predictably, his openly brutal treatment of Persian speakers went
virtually unreported in the western press and “Human Rights” organizations.

It is both
a shame and a sham to see a great nation, the United States, a land
of racial diversity, tolerance, and democracy, making common cause
with pan-Turanian ideologues who openly admire and draw inspiration
from Hitler and Nazism. The Americans heroically fought the Nazis
in World War Two in the name of justice and liberty.

But the
recent western embrace of anti-democratic and anti-Iranian racist
demagogues is anything but strange. Mr. Saddam Hussein, a pan-Arab
racist, not only invaded Iran in 1980, but was generously rewarded
with chemical and biological weapons, which he used not only against
Iranian troops, but liberally against Iranian civilians and Iraq’s
own helpless Kurdish population. Not only did any of this repel the
west from Saddam, he was openly courted and congratulated by western
officials such as Mr. Donald Rumsfeld (below left):

Rumsfeld

Although
the above clearly shows the hypocrisy of the man, Rumsfeld is remarkably
consistent in his focus: he profoundly dislikes Iranians. Even as
the horrors of the gas attack on Halabja were surfacing, Rumsfeld
and western media outlets were apologetic and circumspect – after
all, Saddam was a useful ally against Iran in the 1980s.

Fatema
Soudavar Farmanfarmaian has noted that:

“…some
of us (Iranians) remember how the United
States insisted that
it was Iran, not Iraq, that was using
poisonous chemicals against Kurds, and
so strong was that propaganda that most believed it, even after
Flavio Cotti of the International Red Crosspublicly corrected
the record. Nobody was willing to defend Iranians, even less say
a word against Iraqi bombing of World Heritage sites like Isfahan
(and other important monuments)…”

Saddam finally
outlived his usefulness and was as callously removed as the end butt
of a used cigarette. Now that militant anti-Iranian pan-Arabism has
temporarily spent itself, Mr. Rumsfeld (and friends) has “discovered”
pan-Turanianism. Mr. Rumsfeld has in fact met Mr. Chehreganli several
times and has shaken his hand in the name of Iran’s destruction. The
US-Chehreganli connection was recently elaborated by Professor
William Beeman (see Web References):

“…there
have been continued contacts between Iranian Azerbaijani separatist
Mahmudali Chehregani and the Bush administration…There
is continued administration contact and support for the MEK…”

[William
O. Beeman, US Attack on Iran may be in the Cards, Pacific News Service
On-Line, June 28, 2005]

Then
there is the “nuclear issue” of Iran,
a topic which the author has purposefully avoided mentioning in this
publication[xxiv]. The authorhas no
firm opinion formed on the subject, as his knowledge of the issues
are rudimentary at best. However, the writer does propose that
even if Iran completely dismantled its nuclear
program, the bigger (geopolitical-Petroleum) agenda would remain unchanged. Iran would still
be vilified and attempts to dismember it (a la Chereganli) would continue
unabated.

Many
Iranians share this cynicism, viewing the current “nuclear crisis”
as not only another extension of Petroleum Diplomacy[xxv],
but an attempt to hinder Iran’s
technological progress. Peaceful nuclear technology allows for the
advancement of many areas of expertise, especially medicine. As noted
by Mr. Reza Vatandoust, a high-profile and well respected member
of Iran’s on-line cultural platforms:

“...this
issue is not about preventing the falling of nuclear weapons into
the hands of "So called terrorists", it is about preventing/stopping
the advancement of the Iranian people into the future.”

Mr.
Vatandoust’s statement evokes vivid memories of Mr. George Ball
in the 1970s and his vehement opposition to all aspects of technological
advancement in Iran. Mainstream non-partisan Iranians
now increasingly suspect that attempts are being made to hinder
Iran’s technological progress, irrespective of whether there is a
nuclear program in place or not. In the wider geopolitical-Petroleum
scenario, it is simply not “good business” to have a technologically
powerful and economically viable Iran. Such an Iran simply does not fit into the nefarious Bernard Lewis Plan.

This being
said mention must be made of the long standing bellicose propaganda
emanating from the seats of Tehran's government. There is particular
venom directed against Israel with outrageous calls for its destruction.
But Why? Statements such as "Israel must be wiped off the map"
only serve to focus international wrath against Iran and are a godsend
to those with a long-standing geopolitical agenda to dismember Iran
and destroy its Persian heritage.

Iran also has no historical disputes with Israel. First,
Iranians have long-standing links with the Jewish people, dating to
the time of the Medes and Cyrus the Great. Few in the world are aware
the one of the first elements of the Jewish Diaspora settled in Hamadan,
where many of their descendants live to this day. The tomb of esther
and Mordechai is in Hamadan. Second, Iran has no territorial disputes
with the Israel. Third, Iran is not an Arab country. Arab problems
with Israel are best settled by the parties themselves.

As noted in Part II, item 8c, many Iranians have become
disillusioned and tired of the current government's adoption of pan-Arab
issues. Iranians vividly recall how the majority of Arab nations sent
volunteers to fight Iran in the 8 year Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988),
while offering meek protests with respect to the long-standing Israeli-Palestinian
conflicts. The Arab world (with the exception of the Shia in Lebanon
and Iraq) has certainly had a very cool reception to Iran, despite
its pro pan-Arab rhetoric. Arab ideologues continue to openly call
for Iran's destruction as a nation, reject any suggestion of a Persian
legacy in their culture or Islam, and continue to make demands on
Iranian territory. As noted previously by this author, a number of
hard-core Muslim fundamentalists regularly chant "death to Iran"
alongside the boringly familiar "death to America etc.".

Having criticized the Iranians, geopolitical lobbies
(including Israel) have nothing to gain by trying to dismember Iran
as a state. These actions will only aggravate an already tense situation.
Simply, the madness must end. It is time for calm and rational discourse
to take place between reasonable people. To be frank, many Iranians
are bored of slogans and propaganda, however they all unanimous in
opposing any attempts at dismembering Persia and its legacy.

(11)
A Final Note.

It is my
sincere hope that this article will draw attention to pan-Turanian
ideologues and allow questions to be raised as to their ambitions,
especially in Iranian Azerbaijan and the Caucasus.Chauvenism in any
shape or form (e.g. Nordicism/Nazism, Persian Chauvenism, Pan-Arabism,
pan-Kurdism, pan-Turkism, etc.) remains a menace to humanity and world
peace.

The
main objective of this on-line book/commentary has been a simple one:
preventing conflict by questioning the motives of those who wish to
promote comflict. Their dogmas fail when exposed to the rigours of
objective information. More important than objective information
is the basic human decency of realizing how futile and wasteful wars,
conflicts and child-like tribalisms are. Wars avail nothing but
destruction and anguish. Conflict often has its roots in ignorance,
as noted by the wise saying of the Guru Nanak (1469-1539 AD),
the founder of the Sikh religion in India:

“Ignorance
is the root of all Evil”.

Any
teaching that promotes hatred is ultimately rooted in ignorance, and
ignorance can be defeated with knowledge and human decency.

[iv] “Pakhtunistan” would assist in the process of the disintegration
of Pakistan, Iran and possibly Afghanistan.

[v] As with the Al-Ahwaz and Arabian Gulf projects, the
Azerbaijan project is being supported by lobbies harboring economic
objectives. As noted by Olson, “…the growth of Azeri nationalism
facilitated US and EU efforts to make the Caspian basin region a
‘second Persian Gulf’…” (Turkey-Iran Relations, 1979-2004, 2004, p.155-156).

[vii] Dr. Shaffer asked the US Congress in 2002 to lift long-standing
US sanctions on the Republic of Azerbaijan despite long-standing concerns with the Republic’s
human rights records and anti-democratic procedures..

[viii] Dr. Shaffer has given speeches to the nationalist, pan-Azeri Vatan
Society in Britain
in 2004.

[ix] Afshin Molavi, a US-based Iranian analyst, has noted
that Shaffer’s book has "captivated the attention of [Iranian]
regime change advocates in Washington."

[xiii] The professor’s knowledge of all phonological and orthographic
(Arabic-based) varieties of Persian are impressive. The Professor
showed the author during his interview, a copy of old Tajiki hand-written
manuscripts that he was researching. Maclean is also versed in the
Dehlavi (Moghul Indian) style of Persian, the Masnavi of Jallale-Din
Rumi, the Golestan Saadi and the Divan-e- Hafez.

[xiv] By “nation building” I assume that the Professor meant
Iranian nationalism attempts at nation-building. This means that
Iranians have invented Azerbaijan’s history as a way of keeping that province
in Iran.

[xvi]Iran's Arabic language Al-Alam television noted
after the seizure of the British and their equipment that “…on
board (the seized boats of the British) they (Iranian authorities)
found weapons and spy cameras, plus detailed maps of areas within
Iran and Iraq." The full text of this broadcast is
provided in the on-line Payvand News network site of June
23, 2004 edition, http://www.payvand.com/news/04/jun/1141.html.

[xxiii] Philip Robins, Suits and Uniforms: Turkish Foreign
Policy Since the Cold War, Hurst & Company, London,
p.81. it is interesting to note that when British Foreign Secretary,
Malcolm Rifkind visited Turkey in September 1995, the Turks made their dissatisfaction
with British sponsorship of Med-TV very clear to the secretary.

[xxv] One
tiny piece of inconsistency is worthy of note: politically unstable
Pakistan, with its vast arsenal of nucleur
bombs, is not seen as a threat. This is very illogical, as much
of the nation’s populace and upper leadership seethes with anti-US
sentiment, and there is a genuine danger of a Taliban style takeover.
The Taliban are highly irrational and bear a fanatic hatred of the
west. Rather than finally confront reality, mainstream American
analysts continue to parrot the fallacy that all Pakistanis and
Saudis are friends of the United States.